The Gaps Between The Digital Divides
Miriam Nes - 14 April 2005 – INF5010
1. Introduction
When studying science and politics on the subject of social aspects of technology, a
specific topic is often mentioned; the Digital Divide. From UN to Microsoft, in social
studies and by technocrats, the term ‘the digital divide’1 is frequently used. But on what
kind of divides, and from what perspectives, is this interdisciplinary term used?
“The ‘digital divide’ is real. It is actually several gaps in one: a technological divide in
infrastructure, with 70 percent of the world’s Internet users living in the 24 richest countries, which
contain just 16 percent of the world’s people; a content divide, with nearly 70 percent of the world’s
Websites in English /../ and a gender divide, with women and girls in many countries, rich and poor
alike, enjoying less access to information technology than men and boys.” Kofi Annan (2003)[6:20]
“The digital divide is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in the mushrooming
discourse on information society /../ While information and communications technologies /../ have
the potential to benefit all, it is the unfair political economic context within which they are
developed, deployed, and diffused that needs to be reformed or better reconfigured for equitable /../
This would require strategies that employ ICTs for developmental purposes in a meaningful way and
do not simply bridge the digital divide in an instrumental sense” Parayil [14:49]
Generally, when talking about the digital divide, one refers to a significant difference in
either access to technology, knowledge of the use of technology, or both. In this survey,
I aim to present the different main views on the term ‘the digital divide’ and the
political approaches to it. The focus will be on how the term is interpreted differently
on different arenas. Main dividers will be presented, organized into two main themes;
global and within societies. Observations made will then be pointed out and discussed,
and finally some concluding remarks are presented.
2. The Digital Divide on a Global Scale
The UN has long addressed the impact of technology upon society. In 1990, UNESCO2
established its CI3 sector, where one of the three main goals is the promotion of access
for all to ICTs4. Metakides[1] argues that the divide between developed and developing
parts of the world is the most critical digital divide and UN focus is also mainly on the
global divide: “How should we act so that this revolutions of minds and instruments is
not merely the privilege of a small number of economically highly developed
countries?”[3:6] Most projects run in developing countries in Africa, Arab States, Asia
and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean: I note with regret that ICTs are
viewed by UN as a somewhat positive autonomous force, expected to ‘leapfrog’
development through economic growth. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Holmes[12] attacks the absence
of non-commercial technological professionals in the debate itself, and together with
Parayil[13] strongly warns against technological determinism and the abandonment of
meta-models of development.
UNESCO supports the UN WSIS5 2003 plan to bridge the digital divide, and cooperate
with commercial international corporations such as Microsoft6 (MS). Initiatives are
1
2
‘the digital gap’ or ‘the great gap’ are sometimes used about the same phenomenon
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Communication and Information
4
By ICTs, UNESCO seem primarily to think of access to the Internet and PCs.
5
UN World Summit on the Information Society
3
primarily governmental programmes, local initiatives7, seminars and conferences. MS
contributes through inter alia computer donations, distribution of cheaper versions of
software, promotion of digital literacy in the education system and setting up learning
centers. The main focus in reviewed literature on the global gap is access to computers
and the Internet, often through schools and community centers. [7, 8, 9, 10]
Venkat[11] is one of the critizisors of commercial involvment in UN initiatives. He
argues that the information technology industry is eager to create new markets.
Linbæk[10] counterclaims that MS offers a platform for applications, and development
of such gives economic growth. I note however, that MS profits from new MS
applications as well as software fees and the creating of MS users.
Parayil [13,14] claims the real digital divide is access to primary education, public
health, drinking water, employment opportunities etc, and that the revolutionary
potential of ICTs for development only can occur when this is in place. All reviewed
academic papers emphasize that the global divide only is a symptom of deeper social
problems, and bridging it should not be the core of major poverty efforts.
“The digital divide is often portrayed in crassly reductive terms as a mere technological access
problem that can be ostensibly addressed by providing cheap computing and communication
technologies to the poor. However, the digital divide is not merely a technological problem due to
the absence of connectivity or access to cyberspace. This instrumentally informed discourse on
digital divide is a modernist tendency to unreflectingly categorize and compartmentalize complex
sociotechnological changes into one-dimensional social problems in a bid to resolve them through
simple technological fixes.” Parayil [14:41]
3. The Divides Within Information Societies
As shown, a simplistic definition of digital divide may be that of technical access. But
the term, as Compaine[15] outlines, also depicts the in my view more significant social
entry. Different socio-demographic characteristics such as education, income, gender,
race, ethnicity, age, language, disabilities8 and location are recognized as dividers. Kirk
et.al.[16] states that not only lack of access causes digital divide, but other powerful
social factors like race, class and gender stereotypes, computer anxiety, the social
context of computing and performance expectations. Still, UNESCO[3,6] and many
governmental programmes focus on the distribution of technologies and ICT-education.
Payton[17] criticizes governmental lack of insight of local social, economic, and
technical needs in policy plans. The Free Internet Initiative (FII)[18] in LaGrange
(Georgia, US), shows the need for bridging deeper divides than mere access. FII
offered Internet access to all inhabitants of the city, focusing on fighting socioeconomic
digital illiteracy. The result was disappointing – most people in the target groups
refused the offer. They concluded that providing access to IT is insufficient to
adequately address the digital divide (FII[18]:8).
3.1 Racial, Class Related and other Socio-economic Gaps
Fitch[19] presents data from the 1999 Scottish Household Survey, similar to data from
UK and US, which shows that socially excluded of all kinds (unemployed, disabled,
retired) invariably falls on the wrong side of the gap, with education and income as key
6
17.11.2004: UNESCO and Microsoft signed ‘Cooperation Agreement to Help Bridge the Digital
Divide’
7
i.e. Community Multimedia Centers (CMCs)
8
According to Zimmerman et.al[20] seizure disorders, visual-, hearing-, cognitive- and motordisabilities
indicators. Zimmerman et.al.[20] on the other hand, contradicts Fitch by claiming that
divisions aligned primarily along economic and educational lines has narrowed, and
that new divides such as disabilities are emerging as important. The different causes for
digital exclusion are clearly intertwined and complex. Socioeconomic, racial and classrelated problems seems to be closely related, often papers describe two or three of this
issues together (FII[18], Payton[17], Hendrix[21] et.al.).
3.2 Gender, Age and Disability as Dividers
UNESCOs studies on ICTs and disabilities show that the disability gap can in fact be
bridged by simple enactments of disability-inclusive IT policies and legislatives.
Governments are thus encouraged to enforce laws to implement standards and the right
of disabled to technological access. Zimmerman et.al.[20] agrees to standards being
what will help make Web sites and other technologies accessible for people with
disabilities, and refers to guidelines from Worldwide Web Consortium. He outlines
simple examples to show this, such as how PDF-files are coded as an image, and thus
screen reader programs, used by people with visual disabilities, can’t read them.
UNESCO recognizes the gender divide as “the most significant inequality to be
amplified by the digital revolution”([4]:5). UNESCO focuses on projects to include
more women, not on understanding the reasons for the exclusion, and are criticized by
feminists such as Lagesen[22] and Gansmo[23]. Feminist focus has been on
understanding gender exclusion, not ‘getting more women into technology’.
Brandtzæg[24] claims 90 millions EU-citizens are fully or partly left out of the ICTsociety due to such permanent obstacles as age or disabilities. He and Fitch[19] warns
that the problems with making all citizens digital literate corrupts plans for e-societies
and e-commerce. Metakides believe a transition to an e-society will itself contribute to
digital literacy, but he also says: “/../ transition to the information society has also the
potential to widen the gap /../” ([1]:1) Compaine[15] also believes public e-services,
besides ICT in the education system, will take care of digital inclusion.
3.3 ICTs in Education – Divides or Unites?
Many social scientists accuse ICT in education of increasing the digital divide through
strengthening ICT-stereotypes9 (Gansmo[23, 25], Lagesen[22]). Bromley[26] questions
the motives for initiatives concerning technologies in education. Hendrix[21] points out
the uneven resources between schools: some students are denied technical knowledge
due to lack of computers. Further, teachers often assume that every child has the
benefits of Internet at home, and this is unfair to those who have not. Through this, she
claims the education system reinforces the ICT knowledge gap between social classes.
3.4 Understanding Divisions: Gender Research and the ‘Cyborg-Users’
Technology increasingly influences society, in social relations as well as in economics.
Technically unskilled may not only be excluded in social relations, but also find it
increasingly difficult to get a job, and suffer relative and absolute wage loss vis-à-vis
skilled counterparts (Metakides[1], Parayil[14]). There are therefore strong voices
(Bromley[26], Näslund[27]) arguing the need to understand the reason behind the
divides, not assume they will disappear on their own (like Compaine[15]) or initiate
deterministic access projects (like the FII[18]).
9
Term often used in gender research on ICT activities associated with a certain type of person. Ex: the
‘nerd’, the programmer etc. Identity shaping negotiated around the stereotypes. See Håpnes et.al.[20]
Because of the influence of social context and user type, many scientists10 argue that
technology is not neutral. Therefore, equal access to and knowledge of resources is not
enough to promote equal opportunities between different social groups. Näslund also
points out that arguments of equal access “locates the inequality within individual users
rather than within a societal, cultural and technological context.” (Näslund [27]:106).
Bromley[26] understands technology as mutually shaping and shaped by society. This
non-neutral, co-constructive socio-technological view is strongly rooted within gender
research, which since the 80s have seen socio-technical relationships as a results of
social, historical and cultural constructions. Several papers11 thus argue that feminist
studies have the tools to explain social divides. Kirk et.al.[16] promote
multidisciplinary co-operation between ‘hard’ and social sciences on socio-technical
issues. Bromley[26] aligns with gender research in seeing social processes related to
technological practice as a significant site for the playing out of power, privilege, social
regulation and social change. UNESCO[4] points out that women are underrepresented
in all decision-making structures in the ICT sector, and this undermines the negotiation
of gender-sensitive decisions. Kirk et.al[16] raise the issue that many (decisionmaking) engineers lack an understanding of why social factors matter, and calls for
focus on such issues in technological educations.
There is strong consensus12 that technical decisions in development, implementation
and modification of technologies as well as in representation of technological artefacts
enacts new social contracts, and aims at a certain type of user. The user technology is
designed for is typically a white, middle-class and non-disabled man. Näslund wants to
open up the debate of different kind of users, and introduces the concept of ‘cyborguser’; we as human users are extended by technology in different ways:
“If we are all cyborgs and are therefore different as well as similar to each other, society needs
to join us in the feminist struggle for a society where different technologies becomes available
for different kinds of users.” Näslund [27:111]
UNESCO suggests mandatory participation of disabled users in political and industrial
plans. ([5]:59,62,69). With this there seems to be a general agreement on the need to
involve marginalized user perspectives in both product development and policy
planning, and move away from the stereotype user.
4. Discussion
Some issues related to the digital divide are global, and the discussion is then mainly on
PC and Internet access and use. One discusses the differences between countries, or
more often, continents. It seems to be unclear which parts of the world the gap divides,
but a polarized view between developing countries and the western world is common.
Within societies, the term is used on a variety of different divides. The technologies
one think of may be much more nuanced and diverse, and the discourse is about
different reasons for social exclusion of certain groups in the particular society from
using these technologies. The main areas are on race, gender, disability, socioeconomic
differences, education, class and age issues, but these are often intertwined. Reviewed
literature has not focused on residence, culture or linguistic background as dividers.
10
Parayil[14], Bromley[26], Näslund[27], Lie[28], Håpnes[29] et.al.
Näslund[27], Lie[28], Gansmo[23], Håpnes et.al[29], Kirk et.al[16]
12
UNESCO[4], Kirk et.al.[16], Gansmo[23], Bromley[26], Näslund[27], Lie[28], et.al. - established
view in gender research related to informatics.
11
Generally everyone agree that digital divides should be bridged, but it is seldom
explained why, and reasons given are often related to other clearly unjust divisions,
such as poverty and discrimination. Many argue that poor countries through access to
ICTs will join the ‘technological revolution’ and have opportunities for economical
growth. Several academics warn against technological determinism; the global divide is
a symptom of poverty, not the cause. A debate is ongoing on whether one should aim to
understand, and change, the reasons behind the divides, or simply initiate access-based
projects to turn the numbers around.
The governmental policies may be to simplistic and naive on the more complex coconstructive identity issues, but seem to work well on issues of simple access. To
understand the divides, strong suggestions on interdisciplinary co-operation are being
made, especially between gender studies and informatics. There is general agreement
that different user perspectives should be presented, and influence decisions, both in
research, industry and politics.
My opinion is not far from that of Bromley[26] in that technological knowledge is
strongly related to status and power. This I believe goes for relations between men and
women, developed and developing countries, rich versus poor and disabled versus nondisabled. Like Kirk et.al[16], I encourage interdisciplinary co-operation. As a computer
science student, I feel such perspectives as Näslund[27]s on the cyborg-user should be
introduced in software and requirement engineering classes. In a world where digital
inclusion bring power, I think it is vital not to exclude social groups or continents. Not
because everyone should benefit from the so-called digital revolution, but because of
the increasing value of knowledge. I align with modern gender research in the aim to
understand such gaps and, like Parayil [13,14] outlines, change the underlying reasons
for segregation without being blinded by determinism and reductionism.
5. Conclusion
The type of divide and what it really divides is seldom outlined when the term ‘digital
divide’ is used. Further, it is not common to base the analysis of the term on ones
perspective, and neither to give grounds for the extent of it. There are few well-founded
statements on the seriousness of the divides. I suppose this is because of the complexity
and difficulty to rate. Naturally, researchers emphasize the seriousness of the digital
divide in their own field, and downplay the role of other divides. The different papers
thus contradict each other on the development of the different divides. It is my consern
that the term is in danger of loosing its worth based on the un-critical usage. This may
lead to that important discource becomes pop political terminology and looses impact.
Even less reasoned for is why it is important to bridge the gaps. Instead, it seems to be
commonly accepted that all such divides are unjust and need to be bridged. Not all
expresses grave concern however, and some are skeptic to treating the gaps as
problems in themselves instead of as symptoms of deeper social issues. Some
emphasize the unfairness of the situation in regards to the huge differences in
technological development between (polarized) opposites, others the importance of
participation for all in the expected technological future (e-societies). All in all, one
agrees on the importance of user-participation by the marginalized in sociotechnological decisions, in order for them to become socially and digitally included.
I propose that a major contribution by the computer science community to both mend
and avoid exsisting and future divides, would be to stress the importance and effects of
a nuanced user perspective early on. Software and technological artefacts are designed
for a specific user, and may thus discriminate others. This leads to the kind of cultural
gaps mentioned by FII[18] and Kirk et.al[16]. A re-negotiation of the user perspective,
like Näslunds[27] cyborg-user, may contribute to a more inclusive technology.
References
[1] Metakides, Prof. George (2001) Challenges for a Human-Centered Information
Society, in IEEE 2001 International Conference on Image Processing, Proceedings
[2] UNESCOs website http://www.unesco.org/
[3] UNESCO by Kwame Boafo (2003), Status of Research on the Information Society,
UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on the Information Society
[4] UNESCO by Natasha Primo (2003), Gender Issues in the Information Society,
UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on the Information Society
[5] UNESCO by Gus Hosein (2004), The Bordering and Restraining of Global Data
Flows, UNESCO Publications for the Politics of the Information Society
[6] UNESCO by William H. Dutton (2004), Social Transformation in an Information
Society: Rethinking Access to You and the World, UNESCO Publications for the World
Summit on the Information Society
[7] WSISs website http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html
[8] UNESCO, Community Multimedia Centers, pamphlet
[9] Gundersen, Arne (29/03/2005) The Norwegian Commission for UNESCO,
presentation of UNESCO on Ulandsseminar: How wide is the digital divide?
[10] Lindbæk Jr., Jannick (29/03/2005) Public Relations Manager, Microsoft, Norway,
presentation of Microsoft on Ulandsseminar: How wide is the digital divide?
[11] Venkat, Kumar (2002) Delving into the Digital Divide, in IEEE Spectrum, Vol 39,
Issue 2
[12] Holmes, Nerville (2003) The Digital Divide, the UN, and the Computing
Profession, in Computer, Vol. 36, Issue 12, 142 - 144
[13] Parayil, Govindan (29/03/2005) Professor, TIK, UiO, presentation of his research
on the digital divide on Ulandsseminar: How wide is the digital divide?
[14] Parayil, Govindan (2005) The Digital Divide and Increasing Returns:
Contradictions of Informational Capitalism, in The Information Society, 21: 41–51
[15] Compaine, Benjamin M (2001) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a
Myth, Cambridge, The MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-53193-3
[16] Kirk, Mary, Carol Zander (2004) Narrowing the Digital Divide: In Search of a
Map to Mend the Gap, in Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges archive, Vol. 20,
Issue 2, 168-175
[17] Payton, Fay Cobb (2003) Rethinking the Digital Divide, in Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 46, No. 6
[18] Keil, Mark, Garret W. Meader, Lynette Kvasny (2002) Bridging the Digital
Divide: The Story of the Free Internet Initiative in LaGrange, Georgia, IEEE
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS’03)
[19] Fitch, Dr. David (2002) Digital Inclusion, Social Exclusion and Retailing: An
Analysis of Data from the 1999 Scottish Household Survey, in IEEE Proceedings of the
2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS 02)
[20] Zimmermann, Don, Maria Roll, Teresa Yohon (2001) Making Web Sites and
Technologies Accessible, in IEEE Professional Computer Conference 2001 (IPCC
2001), 87-93
[21] Hendrix, Elisabeth (2005) Permanent Injustice: Rawls’ Theory of Justice and the
Digital Divide, in Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 63-68
[22] Lagesen, Vivian (2003) Advertising Computer Science to Women (or was it the
other way around) in Lie, Merete (ed.) He, She and IT Revisited: New perspectives on
Gender in the Information Society, Oslo, Gyldendal
[23] Gansmo, Helen J. (2003) Limits of State Feminism in Lie, Merete (ed.) He, She
and IT Revisited: New perspectives on Gender in the Information Society, Oslo,
Gyldendal
[24] Brandtzæg, Petter Bae (2005) Eldre kan bli utestengt fra IT-samfunnet in
Seniorpolitikk.no, interview by Per Halvorsen
[25] Gansmo, Helen J, Vivian A. Lagesen, Knut H. Sørensen (2003) Forget the
Hacker? A critical re-appraisal of Norwegian studies of gender and ICT in Lie, Merete
(ed.) He, She and IT Revisited: New perspectives on Gender in the Information Society,
Oslo, Gyldendal
[26] Bromley, Hank (1998) What To Ask About Technology, initial statement for
ITForum discussion, ITForum Paper #29
[27] Näslund, Rebecka (2003) Gender, Technology and Disability: Building up a
Research Plan, in INF3250/4250 Design og kjønn, compendium, IfI UiO (2004)
[28] Lie, Merete (2003) The new Amazons – Gender Symbolism on the Net in Lie,
Merete (ed.) He, She and IT Revisited: New perspectives on Gender in the Information
Society, Oslo, Gyldendal
[29] Håpnes, Tove, Bente Rasmussen (2003) Gendering Technology – young girls
negotiating ICT and gender in Lie, Merete (ed.) He, She and IT Revisited: New
perspectives on Gender in the Information Society, Oslo, Gyldendal